Skip to main content

"What Jennifer Did" is a Complex Crime Documentary Involving One Insane Daughter and Her Insane Parents

Business Insider

A Netflix documentary named What Jennifer Did shows the darker side of Asian parenting. Yes, Jennifer Pan is guilty but what caused it to happen. Jennifer was from an overly demanding Canadian Vietnamese family. She had a secret boyfriend named Daniel Wong (who was into drug dealing). These overly strict tiger parents only created a monster. Indeed, indulgent parents get nowhere. However, these harsh parents caused their daughter to also become a monster. If so, did they have it coming to them?  

If I moved to Canada, maybe I would've had a crush on Jennifer as a teenager if I knew her personally. She has the image of an intelligent woman. Maybe, my own parents would think having parents-in-law as crazy as hers would be beneficial. I was looking into the video and said, "Oh my! What a waste of a woman!" I did some research on this topic to find out how her parents are plain crazy and they probably deserved their own daughter's backlash. I'm not trying to justify the murder but I'm going to make this a warning to parents not to be either indulgent or harsh, instead be authoritative over authoritarian, or they might end up with a monster like Jennifer. 

Analyzing the very life of Jennifer may have encouraged her to do what she did until it all got worse. Here are some details from All That's Interesting and it might really be what we need to know:
Her father and mother, Huei Hann and Bich Ha Pan, exercised strict control over her everyday life and did everything they could to set her up for success. She was forbidden to attend school dances or parties and was forced to learn piano, figure skating, and martial arts. The rules paid off and Pan transferred to the University of Toronto, graduated, and got a respectable job.

In reality, however, all of these accomplishments were part of an elaborate lie. Jennifer Pan never graduated from college, let alone high school. She forged report cards and university transcripts for nearly a decade before her parents finally found out. She even had a secret boyfriend, Daniel Wong, for seven years.

I expected some deleted scenes or some things left out. As I was watched Give Up Tomorrow, there's no surprise that some scenes didn't make it into the final cut. It was probably due to time constraints but here are some interesting facts that didn't make the cut. They were probably cut out to save time or may have diverted from the topic. 

01 How Jennifer spent her free time while pretending to attend university

In the documentary, it's revealed that Jennifer failed to graduate high school and did not get into university . . . but had lied to her family that she was admitted to Ryerson.

Ho's article reveals that the lengths Jennifer would go to in order to perpetuate that lie. For four years, instead of going to class, she would go to libraries to research relevant science topics to take notes as proof she was going to school. She forged transcripts. At some points, she spent time at cafes and visited her boyfriend Daniel at his university. But she also picked up day shifts at a restaurant in her hometown, She also taught piano lessons and then bartended at a pizza parlor where her boyfriend worked as kitchen manager. When her dad asked about her studies, her mom would defend her and say, “Let her be herself."

02 Jennifer fooled her parents into allowing her to live with a friend

After pretending to attend Ryerson University for two years, her dad asked if she was still going to transfer to the University of Toronto. She lied again and said she had been accepted into the school's pharmacology program.

To keep up the charade, Jennifer suggested that she move in with a friend downtown for three nights a week. Her mom, Bich, convinced Hann it was a good idea because of Jennifer's daily commute. But Jennifer never stayed with her friend. For three days out of the week, she stayed with Daniel and his family at their home. Jennifer was also lying to Daniel's parents. She told them that her parents approved of her long stays, also rejecting their request for both families to meet.

03 Jennifer's parents followed her to her fake job

"What Jennifer Did" alludes to Jennifer feeling like she was being watched and followed by her parents but leaves out an incident involving the blood-testing lab SickKids, revealed in Ho's story. The web of lies Jennifer had constructed about her academic career slowly began to disintegrate when she said that she had volunteered at SickKids. Since the job required spending late nights at the lab on Fridays and weekends, Jennifer suggested spending more time at her friend's place.

But Hann noticed that Jennifer never wore a uniform going to work or even had a key card to get into the lab. Following those suspicions, her dad insisted that her parents drop her off at the hospital for work one day. When they dropped her off, Jennifer ran inside and then hid in the emergency room's waiting area for hours until they left. The next day, her parents called her friend who admitted that Jennifer was never stayed there. When Jennifer came home, she confessed that she didn't volunteer at the lab, she never even went to the Univerity of Toronto and had been staying at Daniel's the whole time. This focused her parents' disapproval on her relationship with Daniel.

Hann attempted to kick her out but Bich pleaded to let Jennifer stay. They confiscated her phone and laptop for two weeks, and she was only allowed to use them while her parents were around. She was also subject to surprise checks of her messages. She was prohibited from seeing Daniel and forced to quit all her jobs except the piano. Her parents also began tracking the miles on her car.

Jennifer still had not revealed that she failed to graduate high school and never went to Ryerson. 

04 Jennifer snuck out to see Daniel and was caught

The Pans' disapproval of Daniel was distinctly clear in the documentary because of his previous marijuana possession charges and lack of professional work. However, the article revealed their disapproval did not stop Jennifer from seeing him. 

In February 2009, Jennifer wrote on her Facebook, “Living in my house is like living under house arrest.” Once she regained enough of her parents' trust, she was able go out, which is when she'd see Daniel between her piano lessons.

One night she stuffed her bed full of blankets to make it look like she was asleep and snuck out to Daniel's house. The next day Bich went into her daughter's room to discover Jennifer wasn't home. This led to Hann and Bich to order Jennifer to come home, apply to college to become a pharmacy lab technician or nurse and cut off her contact with Daniel for good.

05 Jennifer concocted a story about being assaulted to win Daniel back

The documentary was clear that a part of Jennifer's motivations for the murder plot was to be able to have the freedom to see and date Daniel as she pleased. She felt like Daniel was all she had. But the article painted a darker picture of the lengths Jennifer would go to in order to get his attention.

At this point, Daniel was tired of dating someone who had to lie to her parents in order to see him, so he broke up with her and moved on to someone new named Christine. This left Jennifer heartbroken and desperate. She created an elaborate and gruesome fiction in the hopes that he'd feel moved to reconcile with her.

She told him that she opened the door for a man who showed her a police badge. She claimed that when she let him in, a group of men pushed in, overpowered her and gang-raped her in her home. Days later she also told Daniel that she had received a bullet in an envelope. She claimed that the assault and bullet missive were warnings from Daniel's new girlfriend Christine, threatening Jennifer to leave him alone.

06 Jennifer claims she was scammed in her first attempt to kill her dad

In "What Jennifer Did," it briefly mentioned that Jennifer had met with someone previously about a plot to kill her parents, but it never gave any details about the meetings she had with the person. In the article, Jennifer is painted as growing incredibly frustrated with her familial circumstances. So in 2010, Jennifer met up with a former friend from school, Andrew Montemayor, who commiserated with her over difficult fathers and imagining a life with them dead. This planted the seed for murder. He then introduced Jennifer to his roommate, Ricardo Duncan.

According to Jennifer, they devised a plan for Duncan to kill her father at his workplace's parking lot. She claimed she paid Duncan $1,500, but he ghosted her. In July 2010, she said she realized she had been scammed.

However, Duncan tells a different story, saying that when she asked him to kill her parents, he was offended and said no. Also, he stated that she only gave him $200, which he returned immediately. 

07 During the actual murder attempt in her home, Jennifer paid the hitmen

Eventually, Jennifer reconnected with Daniel to create another plan to murder her parents that involved at least two other men. Although the documentary details the events of Nov. 8, 2010 – when three men entered the Pan home, killed Bich and seriously injured Hann – Ho's Toronto Life story includes an extra detail.

Jennifer claims that one of the men, Eric Carty, had tied her hands behind her back and forced into her bedroom where she had to give him approximately $2,500 in cash. She went to her parents' bedroom where Carty found $1,100 in U.S. dollars in her mother’s nightstand.

08 The fallout of the trial on Jennifer's family, including her brother

At the end of the documentary, the audience is told that Jennifer and the men included in the murder plot are serving life sentences. Ho's story, however, goes into the emotional fallout of Jennifer's trial and how it has affected her family.

The story reported that the 2014 trial lasted about 10 months. When the jury read the first-degree murder conviction, she did not show any emotion. But when the press left the courtroom, Jennifer began to cry uncontrollably. She automatically received no chance of parole for 25 years.

The judge also ordered a no-communication order between Jennifer and her family at the request of her father and brother, Felix – the latter of whom was never mentioned in the documentary. Her lawyer said of the order that “Jennifer is open to communicating with her family if they wanted to."

Furthermore, Ho reported on Hann's victim impact statement, which read, “When I lost my wife, I lost my daughter at the same time. I don’t feel like I have a family anymore . . . Some say I should feel lucky to be alive but I feel like I am dead too.”

The story also stated that now Hann is unable to work because of his injuries, suffers from anxiety attacks, insomnia, nightmares and chronic pain. His son Felix moved to the East Coast to escape the controversy surrounding their family. He said Felix suffers from depression. Hann also addressed Jennifer: “I hope my daughter Jennifer thinks about what has happened to her family and can become a good honest person someday.”

The documentary updated that last year, Jennifer, Daniel, and two other men involved with the crime –  Lenford Crawford and David Mylvaganam – had all their convictions overturned. They are currently awaiting retrials. In an interview with CBC News in 2023, one of Jennifer's lawyers said, "Her fight is not over." 

Koreaboo

It's interesting that Felix Pan, the younger brother, was never shown for a reason. Was it because he chose to decline? Reliving painful memories like those can be traumatic. Felix probably didn't want to relive the painful memories caused by the web of deception he was too dumb not to spot. If that's true then I can't blame him. But Felix did admit that his father was a control freak of a parent. Probably, the parents were also deceptive, a trait that they unfortunately passed down to their daughter. 

It's the cause-and-effect thing. Sure, not all children born from harsh parents can become like this monster. However, watching it, the parents can't play innocent when their children grow up to become monsters. After all, who was the one who reared the children anyway while they were growing up? 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Wrong Assumption: Those Who Wish to Reform the 1987 Constitution are Automatically Marcos Loyalists and Diehard Duterte Supporters

Orion Perez Dumdum, founder of the CoRRECT Movement was featured in the INQUIRER.net page. It's no surprise that there would be detractors every now and then. Some people still believe that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is "inviolate". If that were so then why does Article XVII exist that the constitution is open for amendments ? It's no surprise that some idiot alleged that Orion is actually a Marcos supporter. The arguments by the anti-reforms are basically Nom Sequitur and Ad Hominem . The use of personal attacks and illogical conclusions are common argument flaws. In fact, one just needs to understand the poor Filipino logic . I remember all the stupidity going on. It's funny such people accuse me of Ad Hominems while doing Ad Hominems themselves! What I'd like to focus on is the Nom Sequitur. Its definition is: 1 : an inference (see inference sense 1) that does not follow from the premises (see premise entry 1 sense 1) specifically : a fallacy

Is the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, the Only Constitution That Institutionalizes, "Public Office is a Public Trust"?

  It's time to revisit one of the favorite people for people against constitutional amendments or reforms, namely Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. (read here ). Yes, the same guy who was also related by marriage to Mrs. Thelma Jimenea-Chiong. Davide's school of thought is in the "uniqueness" of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines as if it's the "best constitution in the world". Davide would mention that the 1987 Constitution is the only one he knows would be the best. A shame really that Davide himself, like Kishore Mahbubani, was once a United Nations representative, and he's saying such stuff.  Article XI of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines writes this in Section 1: Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. Okay, I get it. However

Hilario Davide Jr.'s Still Quoted by Anti-Constitutional Reform Fools on Social Media

  People can falsely accuse me of colonial mentality because I've been quoting Kishore Mahbuban over Hilario G. Davide. I'm really sorry to say but I'm seeing various Facebook posts like La Verite (and the Pinocchio really fits it ), the Rule of Law Sentinel, Silent No More PH, and many more anti-reform Facebook pages (and very ironic too) quote Davide Jr. a lot. It's straightforward to say that Davide Jr. has been the favorite source of such people. An old man with a toga (who blocked me) also often quoted Davide Jr. Also, Davide Jr. turned 88 years old last December 20. I wish I had written this earlier but sometimes it's better late than never. In my case, it's better never late.  Davide Jr. also mentioned that the 1987 Constitution is "the best in the world". It's easy to spew out words but can he defend his claims? One of his old statements went like this: It’s not change of structures, [whether] it would be federalism or parliamentary. It is

Are People Who Say Systems Don't Matter Be Willing to Prove Their Claims for a Million Pesos?

People often argue that it's not the system but the people who run it. Some people have their examples like the late former Philippine president Benigno Simeon "Noynoy" C. Aquino III and former Philippine vice president Atty. Maria Leonor "Leni" S. Gerona-Robredo. They would say that both Noynoy and Leni are "prime examples" why charter change isn't needed, just a change of people in power. Some people even say that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is "inviolate". If that's so then what happened to Article XVII that makes it open to amendments? Why wasn't that even used? That means even making a new constitution isn't illegal per se--unless one did what Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. did during the martial law era! However, if we understand simple psychological science, we need to look at basic psychology. Please, I don't need a doctorate in certain degrees, in the Greenbelt Universities, to understand that there are mist

The Happy Aborigines Taiwanese Song

  While looking for an Aborigine song that gave me an earworm--I found this interesting aboriginal song. By looking at this video, I suspect that this song is actually a love song between a man and a woman,. It does sound very Ifugao-like as well. 

"Give Up Tomorrow" Deleted Scene: The Safehouse Where the Crime Supposedly Took Place

Give Up Tomorrow has been an interesting documentary. Why I was fascinated by it because of how it shook my mind. It turned out that it was a trial by publicity . It was also at that time when The Calvento Files aired a dramatization of Davidson Rusia's testimony. As Cebu City Vice Mayor Raymond Alvin Garcia said, it was a very unpopular move. People already thought Juan Francisco G. Larrañaga aka Paco (and the seven others) were guilty. People thought Davidson's story was worth believing. Some deleted scenes never made it into the final cut  This deleted scene talks about the owner of the place where the crime allegedly happened. David Gurkan now recalls his experience. According to Davidson, this was the story as recorded by the Supreme Court of the Philippines:  From the evidence of the prosecution, there is no doubt that all the appellants conspired in the commission of the crimes charged. Their concerted actions point to their joint purpose and community of intent. Well se

The Curious Case of Dayang Dayang, Not Dayang Daya

I remembered the song "Dayang Dayang" which had a parody cover called "Dayang Daya". Some people wondered if it was from India. Some say it was a Muslim song which makes more sense. It's because the beats almost sound like one from Filipino Muslim dances. Granted, a lot of Filipinos descended from either Malaysian or Indonesian settlers then it would make sense if Dayang Dayang is danced to the Pakiring. The song I just share comes from an Indonesian singer who probably popularized the song.  Many words from the Filipino language match up with Malaysian language or Indonesian language. The Filipino word for help (tulong) is tolong in Indonesian and Malaysian. The Malaysian (or Indonesian) term Dayang is said to mean a noble lady. It would make sense of the song "Dayang Dayang" would've come from Indonesia, Malaysia, or from Mindanao in the Philippines.  This was the most common version heard. I think the video maker wrongly attributed it to Bollywo

The Chiong Sisters Case Muddled by the Philippines' RAMBUNCTIOUS PRESS?

Here's a clip of the late Carlos P. Celdran and Teddy Boy Locsin Jr. from Michael Collins' YouTube channel. Until now, I still wonder if the director of that awful film Animal (2004) namely Federico "Toto" Natividad Jr. was also there during the Cinemalaya premiere. The film Animal (2004) was once entitled Butakal: Sugapa sa Laman in 1999, meaning Male Pig: Drunkard in Body . This clip talks about just how the whole media frenzy caused a double miscarriage of justice.   Celdran, a known reformist and vocal anti-Duterte critic, voiced out the unethical making of a Maalaala Mo Kaya episode. Did I miss something back in the 1990s? All I remember was broadcasting an episode in The Calvento Files.  Until now, the ABS-CBN YouTube channel hasn't uploaded it. How both Marty Syjuco and Collins got some clips of the film isn't specifically said. I believe Marty and Michael went to the late Tony Calvento, asked for his permission, and were given permission. I believe tha

The Late Corazon Cojuangco-Aquino Should've Remained a National Symbol of Unity Even After EDSA 1986

Well, it's time for another today in history  entry, right? I was trying to set up a WordPress site (which might be experimental at best, for now) and it's in. WordPress is that hard to use for someone like me. Back on topic, I was tagged to a post on Facebook on ABS-CBN News Facebook page. It's no surprise that I read people's comments can be very stupid . Some keep talking like, "The 1987 Constitution is the best in the world." or "Change the people. Not the constitution." Please, if that were true why was it that the defective 1973 pseudo-parliamentary government of the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. (and I wrote a rebuttal why it isn't ) had to be replaced with another constitution . Sadly, the 1987 Constitution was written almost in such a hurry which created a lot of mistakes.  The events of EDSA reveal this detail about the late Maria Corazon Cojuangco-Aquino. It was that Mrs. Aquino was hiding in a convent in Cebu at that time . In short, M

Very Easy to Say, "I'm Sure!' and Be Wrong, Am I Right?

  I guess that foolish old man did the right thing to block me on social media. The old man remained incorrigible while having his toga display, apparently getting a doctorate.  An earlier post I wrote was about the misuse and abuse of CTTO . I even wonder who in the world is Merkado CTTO? It's very easy to use CTTO to look smart. However, real studies need more than CTTO but several sources. It should be several valid sources and not just sources you agree with. I was laughing at this old man in a toga (who has thankfully blocked me after I tried to refute his errors as a  nobody ) who tends to use CTTO. I think he was also fond of saying, "I'm sure!" and then it ends up with several stupid claims. Such people would be in what might be best called the MARITES Pyramid of Learning (read here ). These people's best sources can be summarized as "Trust me bro" or "Just trust me". In the case of the meme I made, the peak of the pyramid is, "Jus